€816m Rome’s budget deficit

Rome came within days of bankruptcy last month, after parliament threw out a bill that would have injected fresh funding to reduce its €816m (£671m) budget deficit.

Prime Minister Matteo Renzi approved a last-minute emergency decree that bailed out the beleaguered city. It saw the transfer of €570m (£468m) to the city council, enabling it to pay municipal workers and ensure services such as rubbish collection and public transport. Rome has been bailed out by the central Italian government every year since 2008. Mayor Ignzio Marino said: “Rome has wasted money for decades. I don’t want to spend another euro that is not budgeted.”

Unknown Truths About The European Union by Francis Codjoe

In this meticulously drafted book, the writer has scoured every nook and cranny, left no stone unturned, in a brave and heroic effort to seek the removal of Great Britain from the crumbling EU monstrosity ruled by an unelected, unaccountable cabal of faceless bureaucrats.

Many others have warned of the dangers of a union of European Countries. Sir Winston Churchill said: “Each time we must choose between Europe and the open sea, we shall always choose the open sea.” (Winston S. Churchill, the great British Prime Minister. Comments to de Gaulle before Normandy Landing on 06.06.1944.) He also said, “Every step that tends to make Europe more prosperous and more peaceful is conducive to British interests … but we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not comprised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed. And should European Statesmen address us in the words which were used of old – „Shall I speak for thee to the King or the Lord of the Host?‟ – we should reply with the words of the Shumanite woman: „Nay sir, for we dwell among our own people …‟

Jaques Delors understood that Churchill envisaged European integration only for the countries of the European continent, not for Britain (as Delors noted in Le Monde, 3 May 2000).

Lady Margaret Thatcher herself also issued a warning: “Europe is a monument to the vanity of intellectuals, a programme whose inevitable destiny is failure: only the scale of the final damage is in doubt.”

In 2002, Eric Deakins, former Labour MP and Government Minister, delivered a speech at Trinity College Dublin. The title of the motion was “This house believes that the European Union is a threat to democracy”. In his address Deakins declared: “The Treaty of Rome was the result of a subversion of democracy. The process was not transparent; peoples of the member states had no real choice; they were deceived about long-term aims.” He continued, “There is a fundamental contradiction between common law culture, where rights and power flow up from citizens to state, and Roman Law culture, where rights and power flow down from state to citizen. In making this comparison, I am mindful of Roman Emperor Justinian‟s comment: quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem (what the Emperor is pleased to command has the force of law); this could be a good motto for the Commission.

He then concluded: “The EU is not and never will be subject to the will of its peoples. They cannot vote to accept or reject policies coming from Brussels. The democratic deficit is an inevitable result of the way the EU has been and is being constructed. The EU will continue to be a threat to democracy at national and supranational levels. Democrats must fight harder against this threat. They must not retire to cultivate their gardens, leaving the field clear for the triumph of elitism and bureaucracy in the EU.”

The following editorial puts it in a nutshell: “A New Superstate”:

“Much has already been written in many places about the Convention on the Future of the European Union. Without doubt, this convention would, if its conclusions were ratified, be an enormous and significant step. Effectively, it would turn the European Union into a superstate in its own right, with the present member nations reduced to mere provinces. Although a supranational body from the beginning, the European Economic Community and its successors have at least operated according to treaties entered into by national governments; the Convention aims to go a vital stage further by establishing its own Constitution. The EU would, through this constitution, become the supreme source of legal authority over its entire territory, supplanting the member states and their own constitutions. This would be the final act in putting the United Kingdom under the control of a superstate. Whether the new state is to be called the European Union or the United States of Europe is immaterial; if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it‟s a duck, whatever you choose to call it!”

We hear so much that is pro European but rarely are the Euro-sceptics given a voice. No matter how loud we shout our cries go unheard. We are the invisible majority air brushed from the media as indeed the “Prince of Detectives” has been airbrushed from history.

Several Freedom of Information requests have been placed regarding papers written by the Secret Service Agent by writers more interested in his case work on the Jack-the- Ripper murders than his prolific Christian writings and prophecies on the Union of Europe. However, it is worthy of note because these writers apparently know of the existence of papers which cannot be released even now, 122 years later. One must ask why and what a riddle, further research is needed now that the author has brought the Knight Commander and the “Seer of Dublin” back to life and full square in the public eye. He has told me that eventually he hopes to open a museum to celebrate the life and memory of this great theologian and detective, whose prophecies about Europe we would do well to heed. Otherwise, as Helmut Kohl, German Chancellor (1982-1988) said: “The future will belong to the Germans… when we build the House of Europe. In the next two years, we will make the process of European integration irreversible. This is a really big battle but it is worth the fight”(2002). Well, it most certainly is not irreversible as you will find as you wend your way through this book.

A truly gripping read from start to finish and a must for those who have never really understood the machinations of the European Union. A thoroughly researched and factual book which has taken the author almost 10 years of painstaking research and writing to complete. Ignore his words at your peril and your children and your children‟s children will reap the whirlwind. Codjoe has presented a massive case for our withdrawal from the European Union, like some barrister presenting a case against the European juggernaut. It is left to you the reader to decide on the evidence presented. “Is the future of the EU bright or dark?” Be warned and heed the following before making a decision, for indeed successive governments have been and are the enemy within.

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague” (Marcus Tullius Cicero 106 BC – 56BC).

Official Government Vocative

A prominent German jurist has sharply criticized the German government’s anti-Russian declarations concerning the Crimea Crisis. As Reinhard Merkel, a law professor at the University of Hamburg, explains, the allegation of Russia having “annexed” the Crimea or having made a “land grab” must be unambiguously refuted. These allegations are not only false, from the standpoint of international law; they are also extremely dangerous, because annexation usually engenders war as a response. Merkel explicitly advocates being very skeptical of “official government vocatives insisted on from Berlin to Washington” concerning the Crimea Crisis. Simultaneously, the situation in Ukraine has further escalated. The government that illegally seized power has begun a “lustration” (“purge”), with the objective of removing all supporters of the party of the overthrown President Yanukovych from public office. This is said to affect “thousands.” At the same time, Ukrainian oligarchs, against whose methods of reign the earlier Maidan demonstrations had been protesting, are being given new posts. The ex-boxer Vitaly Klitschko’s, “Made in Germany,” UDAR party has chosen a billionaire as its presidential candidate, rather than its hopeless leader. Fascist forces are positioning themselves to move against the increasingly marginalized pro-Russian segments of the population. The Berlin-supported Maidan opposition had effectively used the fascists’ potential for violence to overthrow Yanukovych.

No Annexation

The jurist Reinhard Merkel, professor of Criminal Law and Philosophy of Law at the University of Hamburg, is sharply criticizing the German government’s declarations on the Crimea Crisis. As Reinhard Merkel writes in a recent newspaper article, the first thing that must be clear is that the Crimea’s integration into the Russian Federation had not constituted an “annexation” and no “land grab.” It was more in line with “secession,” … “confirmed by a referendum”; … “which was followed by a demand for admission to the Russian Federation, which Moscow accepted.” None of this was in violation of international law; the secession had merely been forbidden under Ukrainian law. To make this affirmation is in no way splitting hairs, but rather of great significance. Ultimately, an annexation, a “theft of land by force,” is nothing less than an “act of war.” Only two aspects, of what took place in the Crimea, were in violation of international law. On the one hand, the presence of Russian soldiers outside of their military installations, however, this has no effect on the referendum’s validity. The soldiers did not “guard polling stations,” only secured the possibility of the referendum and the secession occurring, by preventing “the Ukrainian military from intervening under government orders to prohibit secession.”

“Look at Own Record”

Reinhard Merkel also points out that the West can hardly criticize the second violation of international law, i.e. recognition of secession after only two days. Admittedly, it is out of the question that this rapid recognition is in violation of “Ukraine’s right to respect for its territorial integrity.” However, the major Western powers, themselves, recognized the secession of Kosovo in February 2008, just as quickly – even though this, unlike the secession of the Crimea, actually had been a violation of (concrete) international law, “namely, the UN Security Council Resolution 1244 of June 1999,” which had guaranteed “the inviolability of Serbia’s borders.” Therefore, “those angry Western governments” should, “now take a look at their own record.” According to Reinhard Merkel, even though Russia had “violated international law,” it had done so “in a modestly dramatic way and not at all with the politics of a gambling gangster.” On the contrary, the integration of the Crimea has possibly “with all its unpleasantness, prevented a more serious conflict. Already in 2011, Reinhard Merkel had criticized NATO’s war on Libya as a clear violation of international law. That breach of international law had led to innumerable war casualties and destroyed the Libyan government. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.)


Whereas Reinhard Merkel is explicitly advocating “being very skeptical of official government vocatives insisted on from Berlin to Washington,” the situation in the Ukraine is escalating. The government, which had illegally seized power, thanks to Western support, and is still dependent on the West, is about to conduct an extensive “lustration” throughout the country. On Tuesday, the Ukrainian parliament adopted a law to that effect. According to Maidan activist Yegor Sobolev, Chair of the “Lustration Committee,” the “lustration” will start with a “life-long prohibition” of the overthrown Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych “and his closest officials from holding or running for office.” The complete judicial system will be “purged,” from the top-levels all the way down to district courts. Not only “the key officials coming from the soviet KGB system” must be removed from public office, but also “officials who served during Yanukovych’s presidency,” from the top officials down to those at the district level. “The Ministry of Justice is currently preparing to open the register of persons” for the “lustration.” Sobolev adds that “thousands” could be fired.

Oligarchs in Power 

Lustration should not be confused with ousting Ukrainian oligarchs, as was originally demanded at the Maidan, as the personnel-list of the West’s Ukrainian partisans indicates. Apart from the amnesty for oligarch Yulia Tymoshenko, the current government has designated central posts in eastern Ukraine to several oligarchs. The German Foreign Minister is included in negotiations with them. (german-foreign-policy.com reported.[5]) UDAR, the Party led by Vitaly Klitschko, “Germany’s man” in Kiev, has just named the oligarch Petro Poroshenko as its presidential candidate. The reason is obvious: Klitschko “made in Berlin” [6] may be popular in Germany, but he cannot hope to win more than 10 percent of the Ukrainian vote. Poroshenko, however, is one of the richest men in the country. He owns a TV station (“Channel 5”) and several news magazines, which had systematically provided support for the Maidan protests. Owner of a multi-billion dollar candy company, Poroshenko is one of the few Ukrainian oligarchs, who would profit from the EU Association Agreement. He not only is a member of the “Advisory Council” of the EU think tank “European Policy Centre,” whose cooperation partners include the German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP); he had served also as Minister of Economics in the Yanukovych government. However, because of his pro-Western orientation, it is out of the question that the “Lustration” will prevent him from running for president.

Fascist Combat Squadrons 

Whereas the unrelenting political marginalization of large sectors of the eastern and southern Ukrainian populations has intensified pro-Russian protests over the past few days, fascist forces are increasingly mobilizing for a counter offensive. Already on Monday, a “Ukrainian People’s Self-Defense” unit broke up a peaceful pro-Russian demonstration in southern Ukrainian Nikolayev, wounding ten.[7] In Donetsk, the “Pravy Sektor” (Right Sector) tried – in vain – to suppress the protests. According to several reports, activists of diverse fascist organizations are on their way to eastern and southern Ukraine to confront the demonstrations taking place there. Igor Krivoruchko, a speaker of the “Social-National Assembly” was recently quoted saying, that fascist activists want to dispatch “Combat Squadrons” to eastern Ukraine.[8] The “Social-National Assembly” is often described as “neo-Nazi.” If these “Combat Squadrons” would actually be dispatched, it would be the second time that fascist militia find themselves at the side of Berlin and Brussels – after combat on the Maidan to overthrow President Yanukovych – now in the fight against the forces, refusing to submit to the rule of a Western-installed government.

Published on GermanForeign Policy.com and reproduced with the editor’s approval

Poking the Russian Bear

by Roger Helmer

Roger Helmer


UKIP has criticised EU actions in Ukraine, and has immediately been branded “Apologists for Putin” by the press. We are, of course, no such thing. Russia has behaved reprehensibly and is clearly in breach of international law (though sadly there are too many precedents when the West has also intervened in third countries, on questionable grounds and with doubtful legality). Nevertheless I do blame the EU for creating a problem where there was no need to do so. President Roosevelt’s advice was “Tread softly and carry a big stick”. In Ukraine, the EU has talked loudly and made extravagant promises and raised improbable expectations, while wielding no stick at all — so much for “influence”. Imagine if the situation were reversed, and Russia had made enerous offers implying very close links – and maybe membership of the CIS – to, say, Austria. How would the Germans feel about that? Or to Ireland? What would be the UK reaction? The Ukraine is in the Russians’ “Near Abroad”, their historic sphere of influence. For decades, Ukraine was governed from Moscow. The Crimea (bizarrely) was handed over as a gift from Russia to the Ukraine, but with the clear expectation that Ukraine, now including Crimea, would remain part of the USSR. Khrushchev would never have dreamed that Ukraine might join Western Europe, taking Crimea with it. So I am not justifying Russia’s action. But I am condemning the EU’s approach to Ukraine, which was bound to infuriate and humiliate Moscow, and was always very likely to provoke a hostile reaction – as indeed it did.

How EU law is made

Originally published August 28th, 2010 by Ian Parker-Joseph

When politicians explain that laws are made in Westminster they are only giving you a half truth, so please ask them to explain what I am about to show you below, and then ask them whether they understand the UK relationship with the EU, and how the UK is governed.

Following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, the first pillar of EU law has been satisfied, subsumed into the Treaty on the EU (TEU) and into the renamed Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU). Such treaties provide primary law within all 27 member states.

As the Lisbon Treaty as subsumed allows for self amendment, there will be no more treaties of this kind, only International Agreements that will now be negotiated and sealed by the EU, and former National treaties that will be adopted and form part of the TEU and TFEU, an example of which can be found here.

All other law, in the parlance of the EU, is called Secondary Legislation, and it is derived in the following ways, and I outline the three most important elements of secondary legislation, Regulations, Directives and Decisions. (and I take this from the EUR-LEX database direct).

1.3.1. Introduction
The ‘secondary legislation’ is the third major source of Community law after the treaties (primary legislation) and international agreements. It can be defined as the totality of the legislative instruments adopted by the European institutions pursuant to the provisions of the treaties. Secondary legislation comprises the binding legal instruments (regulations, directives and decisions) and non-binding instruments (resolutions, opinions) provided for in the EC Treaty, together with a whole series of other instruments such as the institutions’ internal regulations and Community action programmes.
1.3.2. Regulation
Adopted by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament or by the Commission alone, a regulation is a general measure that is binding in all its parts. Unlike directives, which are addressed to the Member States, and decisions, which are for specified recipients, regulations are addressed to everyone.
A regulation is directly applicable, which means that it creates law which takes immediate effect in all the Member States in the same way as a national instrument, without any further action on the part of the national authorities.
1.3.3. Directive
Adopted by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament or by the Commission alone, a directive is addressed to the Member States. Its main purpose is to align national legislation.
A directive is binding on the Member States as to the result to be achieved but leaves them the choice of the form and method they adopt to realise the Community objectives within the framework of their internal legal order.
If a directive has not been transposed into national legislation in a Member State, if it has been transposed incompletely or if there is a delay in transposing it, citizens can directly invoke the directive in question before the national courts.
1.3.4. Decision
Adopted either by the Council, by the Council in conjunction with the European Parliament or by the Commission, a decision is the instrument by which the Community institutions give a ruling on a particular matter. By means of a decision, the institutions can require a Member State or a citizen of the Union to take or refrain from taking a particular action, or confer rights or impose obligations on a Member State or a citizen.
A decision is:
– an individual measure, and the persons to whom it is addressed must be specified individually, which distinguishes a decision from a regulation,
– binding in its entirety.
It is important to note that the European Commission, an unelected body, has the power to make law using the methods above without recourse to either the European Parliament or the Council of Ministers. The UK Parliament, our MP’s, now only create on their own initiative something in the region of 15% of the laws that pass through Westminster. All other laws and Statutory Instruments are in furtherance of laws that have been made in Brussels using the 3 methods above.
If you go to the EUR-LEX database directly, you can see the other types of instruments that are used to formulate, or coerse National Governments to introduce legislation ‘voluntarily’ with the veiled threat that a directive will follow unless they do. These areRecommendations, Opinions and Joint Actions.
The Smoking Ban is one such example, where the EU Commission has only ever given an Opinion that National governments were encouraged to follow, with explicit threats of EU legislation if they did not.

Historical laws and regulations are all on the various EU databases. All you have to do is find them, trouble is they keep moving them.

You don’t think they are trying to hide anything! Do you?

Another EU threat to national sovereignty

There was an excellent article in the THE DAILY TELEGRAPH today which is reproduced below:

One of the few “successes” of the British negotiations over the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force in 2009, was a partial opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This political agreement was proclaimed by EU institutions some 14 years ago to replicate the European Convention on Human Rights. The difference is that while the convention comes under the auspices of the Council of Europe, an organisation of more than 40 countries -including Russia and Turkey – the charter is an EU document. The distinction is significant.

Whereas the convention is administered through the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, the charter is enforced by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg. The former, at least in theory, has no direct jurisdiction over our courts; but the latter is the supreme judicial body, whose decisions are binding. This is because EU law has a direct effect under the European Communities Act 1972 and therefore overrides British courts and Parliament.Increasingly, these rights are being transferred to the EU.

Vivienne RedingViviane Reding, the vice-president of the European Commission, says she wants the charter to be the EU’s “very own” Bill of Rights, which would apply to all member states and have legally binding force. The UK’s so-called exemption would effectively be null and void.

In fact, the ECJ is already attempting to impose charter rights on Britain, much to the alarm of senior judges and MPs.Lord Mance, a justice of the Supreme Court, recently warned of the EU “steamrolling” national courts into imposing European human rights rules on the UK. He echoed comments by Mr Justice Mostyn, a High Court judge, suggesting that many of the rights in the charter have already taken effect in the UK despite the opt-outs.

At a time when Britain’s future in Europe is such a controversial political issue, Commissioner Reding’s intervention could hardly have come at a worse time for David Cameron. He wants to renegotiate the terms of membership yet finds that plans are afoot to water down national sovereignty even further.

Moreover, the Conservatives also want sweeping reforms of the human rights convention and the Strasbourg court. But these will be meaningless if the powers are simply taken on by the EU, since they would then trump anything that MPs decide.

This sort of statement from the Commission is grist to Ukip’s mill ahead of European elections on May 22 – and the possible in/out referendum. If Commissioner Reding and her colleagues want Britain to remain in the EU, then they have a funny way of showing it